Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: raccoonradio

I’m against nanny-state laws too. Still, so long as the rest of the public is in favor of telling me that I can’t drink and drive, I see no reason to have sympathy for texting and driving because “everyone does it”. The public wants these nanny state restrictions, they just don’t like it when it applies to something they like to do. Tough teats, said Keats, you get what you ask for.


8 posted on 05/31/2012 8:20:45 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman

This is a confluance of both civil and criminal law IMO. Criminally, I see no liability for the parent owner of the car their half whit son used to kill someone. Civilly, you are responsible for your car no matter whom is driving it...remember, one insures a car. Consider that when someone wishes to borrow your car for any reason.

As soon as we legally could get our cars into the names of our kids, the quicker we did it. Maybe they had to pay a higher premium than as a part time driver under our family policy but tought noogies....Frankly, even then some shyster will try to show you still owned the car and were civilly responsible.


9 posted on 05/31/2012 8:44:43 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson